Contradicting Truth, Obama Calls Syria Plotting “Contradictory”

Obama admitted in an interview aired last weekend that his unconstitutional warmongering in Syria was “contradictory.” But he was not referring to his half-baked plot to arm and train “moderate” jihadist rebels to fight supposedly less moderate jihadists who have been among the top beneficiaries of his machinations in the region. Ironically, Obama’s own admission of “contradiction” contradicts statements by his own senior officials, as well as the truth. And the contradictions — or outright deception — hardly end there.

In the interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes, the president said that his unauthorized war against the Islamic State (ISIS) and various other militant groups aided by his administration, all of which are at war with Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad, was “contradictory.” The reason, he suggested, is because the policies are somehow helping the regime in Damascus by weakening its enemies. “I recognize the contradiction in a contradictory land and a contradictory circumstance,” Obama claimed.

Just last week, however, Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, admitted in a separate TV interview that deposing the strongman was among the goals of the administration’s Syria policy. “The training also will service these troops [Obama’s so-called ‘moderate rebels’] in the same struggle that they've been in since the beginning of this conflict against the Assad regime,” Power told NBC's Meet the Press. In other words, one of the two is not telling the truth: Either the policies will help in the fight against Assad, or they will help the dictator in his fight against foreign-funded jihadists.

Of course, numerous civilians have also died in Obama’s military campaign. But from the start, Western governments and Middle Eastern dictatorships have been focused on toppling Assad — and that remains the case today. In fact, shortly after admitting the “contradictions” in his scheming, Obama suggested as much. “We are not going to stabilize Syria under the rule of Assad,” he continued in the interview, implying that "regime change" remains on the agenda. “On the other hand, in terms of immediate threats to the United States, ISIL, Khorasan Group — those folks could kill Americans.”

Ironically, many of the same militant organizations Obama cited as immediate threats to the United States were openly supported by Obama in another recent “regime change” plot. In Libya, citing “approval” for the scheme by the dictator-dominated UN rather than a constitutionally required declaration of war from the American people’s elected representatives, Obama openly bombed targets on behalf of self-described al-Qaeda leaders to topple strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

Numerous leaders in that Obama-backed uprising, with forces armed and trained courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, publicly boasted of their leadership roles in al-Qaeda organizations such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). Now those same jihadists pose such a threat that an unconstitutional war is supposedly needed to stop them? "Contradiction" would certainly seem to be an understatement.

So, instead of pursuing the same ham-handed PR strategy for deposing Assad in Syria — something that would sound utterly ridiculous to the world at this point — Obama now claims to be bombing the jihadists he helped build up (and which the globalist Council on Foreign Relations said would be crucial in the fight to depose Assad). Despite suggesting that the schemes would help Assad, the end result will be essentially the same as in Libya — a deposed secular dictator replaced by various jihadist factions intent on imposing full-blown sharia and exterminating minorities. At that point, other goals, perhaps regime change in Tehran and more globalism, for instance, can be pursued using that chaos as a pretext.

In reality, none of that bears any resemblance to the truth. U.S. military and intelligence officials, unsurprisingly, were outraged by Obama’s effort to blame them for the barbarianism sweeping the region, rather than his own “contradictory” policies. At least one ranking Pentagon official, writing under a pseudonym in the Daily Caller, slammed Obama’s “lies” in a piece headlined “The President Is Lying To America — About Us, And About ISIS.”

The real reason ISIS became so powerful, contrary to Obama’s claims, is because its fighters have been armed and many even trained courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. Much of that support was provided under secret programs in recent years aimed at deposing Assad, or by Obama’s “allies” among despots in the region. Middle Eastern officials cited in media reports even said Obama had trained actual ISIS fighters at a secret base in Jordan. Plus, even the supposed “moderate” jihadists being openly armed and trained by Obama proudly boast of their collaboration with al Qaeda and ISIS in major news outlets.

“We are buying weapons from the FSA,” ISIS fighter Abu Atheer was quoted as saying by Al-Jazeera, referring to the oftentimes brutal Obama-backed “Free Syrian Army” jihadists. “We bought 200 anti-aircraft missiles and Koncourse anti-tank weapons. We have good relations with our brothers in the FSA. For us, the infidels are those who cooperate with the West to fight Islam.” Separately, FSA commander Bassel Idriss recently told Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper that his group is “collaborating with the Islamic State and the [al-Qaeda-linked] Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings.” Countless other examples of the “moderates” and the “terrorists” boasting of their links exist.

It is not just Obama who has been contradicting himself, his fellow administration officials, and the truth. Secretary of State John Kerry, for example, recently claimed the war was not a war, but rather a “very significant counterterrorism operation” in Iraq and Syria. Then, after other Obama officials called the war a war, suddenly Kerry, too, thought it was a war. According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, so there is probably more to the madness and contradictions than simple semantics. It is indeed a war — just not a lawful or constitutional one.

Meanwhile, despite repeatedly claiming there would be “no boots on the ground” amid the war, or non-war, or whatever the administration calls it today, there are, in fact, thousands of U.S. boots on the ground — at least 1,600 multiplied by two (one boot on each foot) that are openly admitted, to be precise. Several officials have said that, if the “mission” is to be successful, many more boots will be required, also requiring yet more contradictions from the Obama administration.

It is indeed true, then, that there are major contradictions between what Obama and the establishment press are telling Americans and what is actually happening in Syria. The notion that Obama’s self-described “contradictory” policy is “accidentally” boosting Assad as an unintended consequence, however, is not one of them. The end goal in Syria is to remove him, as it has been from the beginning, and continue building what globalists call "order out of chaos."

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.

No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.

No product advertisements.

Please post comments in English.

Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there.

Comments that we consider abusive, spammy, off-topic, or harassing will be removed.

If our filtering system detects that you may have violated our policy, your comment will be placed in a queue for moderation. It will then be either approved or deleted. Once your comment is approved, it will then be viewable on the discussion thread.

If you need to report a comment, please flag it and it will be reviewed. Thank you again for being a valued reader of The New American.